We are not anti-Federalists, we are conservative, constitutionalist Federalists

Many people have heard of the term federalism and believe it is synonymous with conservative or the right. With the rising of the new Federalist Party, it is important to know what is Federalism. If we look at North America, you see that Canada, United States, and Mexico are all based on a federalist form of government. Most of the countries around the world which have a federalist form of government would not be considered conservative.

In the United States, our Founding Fathers were divided on this issue. Should the United States have a strong federal government and Constitution or simply have each State be a nation-state and stick with the Articles of Confederation. The debate over Federalism was most prominently seen in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

The Federalist ultimately won the debate, and the compromise was the Bill of Rights. I think all modern day Federalist are happy this vigorous debate happened, and we are ever grateful to the Anti-Federalist for the Bill of Rights.

In today’s America, it might seem that the Anti-Federalist were correct. That the Federal government is too powerful and today we don’t need a Federalist Party but an Anti-Federalist Party.

I wholeheartedly agree that the federal government is way too powerful, but I would also argue that state governments are way too powerful. If our Founding Fathers were alive today, they would look at our government and wouldn’t recognize our government as something born out of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I believe the Progressive movement in the early 20th Century from both Republicans and Democrats and the adoption of the 16th & 17th Amendments began to move this country into a centralized government which the Federalist would have opposed.

Therefore, if the Anti-Federalist seemed to have been more right should the Federalist Party rebrand itself as The Anti-Federalist Party?

In one sense, yes and no. The Federalist Party believes in having a federalist form of government by going back to the intended role on which the federal government was formed and not what we see today. So in one sense for the Federalist Party to accomplish its goal it must first become the Anti-Federalist Party until we bring down the size of the federal government and restore powers back to the States and the People.

Today, we see conservatives looking at the political landscape and seeing two political parties which are emulating the progressive policies of the early 20th Century. Many, including myself, want something new, or better yet, something old.

We want to go back to the founding principles which formed this country. We do want a federal government but one that is limited to the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8. Instead of Republicans fighting over a replacement for the Affordable Care Act (ACA – ObamaCare), why isn’t the discussion about repealing the ACA and reducing the federal government to its defined Constitutional role. The federal government has no business in nationalizing or regulating health care. We the People have not enumerated those powers in the Constitution to the federal government.

We also don’t want state governments regulated our everyday lives.
The Anti-Federalist were not only worried about State sovereignty being usurped but individual rights. If they looked at what states are doing today, they would be appalled.

What we are lacking isn’t federalism in the country what we are lacking is genuine conservatism applied to federalism. We lack leaders throughout government that believe that government is a tool, not the solution. It’s a tool for the general welfare of society. To protect our natural rights, which are universal and inalienable. Leaders that recognize that we are a People with a government and not a Government with people.

We want a federal and state governments limited to the powers we enumerate to them. Not Rights the government graciously grants us. We demand Conservative Federalism but can we expect to receive it?

The answer will always be no. You can’t wait to receive it. You must take it. You must make the decision today. Will I take back my Rights? Will I finally realize that the binary choice of Democrats and Republicans is a false narrative?

If you agree with me and want our country and government back then today is the day we resurrect the conservative movement. Together we can bring real conservative federalism back to America. I believe we can do this if we come together and destroy the binary choice of Democrat or Republican. If we unite under the flag of Federalist Party and begin our campaign of Anti-Federalism we can and we will bring true conservative federalism back to America.

Fred Savage owns Deadpool in Once Upon a Deadpool trailer

I’ll admit, I didn’t even know this was a thing. When I heard about it, I assumed it was a spoof, probably put out by Ryan Reynolds to catch a few Christmas laughs. I was wrong.

Once Upon a Deadpool is a new edit of Deadpool 2 made with a PG-13 rating. Fox has been pushing for Reynolds to do a PG-13 version for over a decade, but the star has refused until now. He had two requirements. First, he Fox to donate money from the movie to a charity of Reynold’s choice. Which did he choose? A charity Fox is referring to as “Fudge Cancer,” though the charity’s real name would be better served in the R-rated version of Deadpool.

The second requirement is that Reynolds needed permission to kidnap Fred Savage.

Reynolds got both of his wishes and Once Upon a Deadpool was born. It’s due for a limited engagement next month.

Related

Legislators tell Allen West: Next version of First Step Act will cut loopholes

Last week, a handful of conservatives, including Lt. Col. Allen West and Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz, went after the bipartisan First Step Act, a criminal justice reform bill that has the backing of the President and many conservative lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Our complaint: why would the GOP support a bill that releases violent criminals and illegal immigrants?

According to legislative proponents of the bill, protections and benefits for both of these groups of felons have been eliminated in the next version of the bill that will reach the Senate floor. They reached out to West over the weekend to let them know they heard the concerns and are addressing them.

The First Step Act is supported by many conservatives and law enforcement groups, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National District Attorneys Association. There are other proposals offered by those on the far left under the same banner of “criminal justice reform” that would release people from prison without regard to the danger they pose, including illegal immigrants and serious violent offenders. We must remember that there are some folks who are, well, as the ol’ folks would say, “just bad.” Additionally, some left-wing professors even propose abolishing all prisons partly based on their notion that the system is racist in nature. Hmm, I tend to believe that skin color or race has nothing to do with a person deciding to break the law. I just do not want us to go down the path of having criminals believe that there are no consequences, ramifications, for their actions and behaviors.

The legislators echoed our concerns and said the version that is currently available doesn’t reflect the changes that cut the loopholes. They say it will be impossible for these two groups – serious violent offenders and criminal illegal immigrants – to get the benefits of the bill. Many felons will be released early. Future felons will be given lighter sentences. That makes sense for many, but by no means should anyone in either of the two most dangerous groups receive sentence reductions, according to the letter to West.

My Take

Call me cynical, but lately I’ve changed my general rules regarding promises of politicians. It used to echo President Reagan’s stance on nuclear disarmament: “Trust but verify.” I now have to go with a more adversarial stance on political promises: “Show me proof, then we’ll talk.”

When the legislation is made available to the public, many will take a close look at it. I’ll personally be checking to see if there are any loopholes that would put violent offenders or criminal illegal immigrants back on the street sooner. If so, it’s a no-go for me.

Related

Hundreds search rubble in California for human remains

PARADISE, Calif. (AP) — The search for remains of victims of the devastating Northern California wildfire took on a new urgency Monday as rain in the forecast threatened to complicate those efforts while also bringing relief to firefighters.

Hundreds of crews and volunteers were searching the ash and rubble where homes stood before flames engulfed the Sierra foothills town of Paradise and surrounding communities, killing at least 77 people in the deadliest U.S. wildfire in a century.

The fire has destroyed more than 10,500 homes while burning 234 square miles (606 sq. kilometers). It was 65 percent contained.

The rain expected to arrive Wednesday could cause wet ash to flow down steep inclines in the mountainous region, forecasters said.

Rescue workers wore white coveralls, hard hats and masks as they poked through debris, searching for bone fragments before rain could wash them away or turn loose, dry ash into thick paste.

A team of 10 volunteers accompanied by a cadaver dog went from house to house in the charred landscape. Some went to homes where they had received tips that someone might have died.

They used sticks to move aside debris and focused on vehicles, bathtubs and what was left of mattresses for possible signs of victims.

When no remains were found, they spray-painted a large, orange “0″ near the house and moved on.

Robert Panak, a volunteer on a team from Napa County, said he was trying to picture each house before it burned and imagine where people might have taken shelter.

“I just think about the positives, bringing relief to the families, closure,” Panak said.

The search area is huge and the fire burned many places to the ground, creating a landscape unique to many search-and- rescue personnel, said Joe Moses, a commander with the Monterey County Sheriff’s Office, who is helping oversee the effort.

“Here we’re looking for very small parts and pieces, and so we have to be very diligent and systematic,” he said Friday.

Sheriff Kory Honea said it was possible that the exact death toll from the blaze would never be known. He also questioned whether the search for remains could be completed by midweek when the rain is forecast.

“As much as I wish that we could get through all of this before the rains come, I don’t know if that’s possible,” he said.

About 1,000 names remain on a list of people unaccounted for more than a week after the fire began in Butte County about 140 miles (225 kilometers) north of San Francisco.

Authorities don’t believe all those on the list are missing and the number dropped by 300 on Sunday as more people were located or got in touch to say they weren’t missing.

On Sunday afternoon, more than 50 people gathered at a memorial for the victims at First Christian Church in Chico, where a banner on the altar read, “We will rise from the ashes.”

People hugged and shed tears as Pastor Jesse Kearns recited a prayer for firefighters, rescuers and search teams: “We ask for continued strength as they are growing weary right now,” Kearns said.

Paul Stavish, who retired three months ago from a Silicon Valley tech job and moved to Paradise, placed a battery-powered votive candle on the altar as a woman played piano and sang “Amazing Grace.”

Stavish, his wife and three dogs escaped the fire, but their house is gone. He said he was thinking of the dead and mourning for the warm, tight-knit community.

“This is not just a few houses getting burned,” he said. “The whole town is gone.”